the film claimed that, including housecats, even! I had forgotten to mention this. I had never even heard this claim before, and it had always appeared to me that nature spoke against it. Animals get together for procreation, not for "love" as we know it; which is a factor in who we hook up with; and same sex won't achive their goal of having offpring. Animals like dogs will sniff each other, when they see they're both the same gender, they won't try to mate.

Well, that's not true at all.

It's bad enough that even South Park can make jokes about "two gay dogs" and everyone laughs, and the same motif shows up in other pop culture. It happens regularly enough that it's become a joke.

There is also sexual activity in various species including simians that would be labeled as "homosexual," with perhaps some of the behaviors serving some sort of social purpose.

There is homosexual behavior in humans (which could involve sex used for purposes other than romance, such as to threaten or intimidate or just to pleasure oneself); then there is "homosexual romance" that also involves homosexual behaviors that is leading to the arguments about gay marriage; and I'm not sure what the connection is between those two activities and homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom, but yes, various species have been involved participating in "homosexual behavior."

Could this be a new argument devised in the argument? Years ago, I saw one pro-gay book trying to argue from nature have to appeal to other life forms such as many plants and perhaps lower animal forms to try to prove nature favors it. Now, all of a sudden, where are they getting these claims with all of these other, more developed animals from?

Probably the same way "new discoveries!" are made in the religious scientific/historical world all the time that supposedly support the view in question. We can't really prejudge the quality of the claim until we research it, but in anthropological studies and animal behavior that occurs far from civilization, there's usually not much reason for it to flow into public consciousness unless there's a public cause driving it. The scientists are just tracking the behavior; it takes someone else who finds the information useful to promote it, otherwise it just ends up in the lab notes and science journals.

Take it on a case by case, I guess.

"Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

“Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Well, my female cat fell in love with the neighbor's female dachshund last summer but the dawg wasn't having any of it. Obviously on a higher moral plane than my kitty.

Here's a question: Is the incidence of homosexuality on the rise or holding steady? And how could we be sure they were accurate figures? Has to be self-reported, I'd think.

"No ray of sunshine is ever lost, but the green which it awakes into existence needs time to sprout, and it is not always granted to the sower to see the harvest. All work that is worth anything is done in faith." - Albert Schweitzer

Here's a question: Is the incidence of homosexuality on the rise or holding steady? And how could we be sure they were accurate figures? Has to be self-reported, I'd think.

Are we measuring preference or behavior, as well? What's the standard for defining "gay" or "not"? When does "bi" qualify as "gay"?

The figure was misrepresented 10% early in the culture wars (80's and early 90's), presumably to give additional validity to the position; but even homosexual activists started to correct their figures in the last 10-15 years to what seems to be around 3-4% (or something similar)... and I assume the majority of these figures are "self-reported" with some tweaking based on marketing data and the like to try to compensate for bias.

Family Research (*cough*) Report -- I skimmed through it and at least it quotes some details that can be checked and examined, even if the organization itself isn't exactly a "neutral third party," so it could be useful for a starting point. Old report now, though.

“Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

"No ray of sunshine is ever lost, but the green which it awakes into existence needs time to sprout, and it is not always granted to the sower to see the harvest. All work that is worth anything is done in faith." - Albert Schweitzer

Homosexuality is considered to be a SIN, and it is the sinful behavior that is not tolerated.

Meh.

All "sin" means by Biblical standards is not living in accordance with God's design. I've never considered Paul or the Old Testament to be authorities on God's design. If I were a Christian I would look to...oh I don't know...Jesus Christ! The guy who, ironically, never said a word about homosexuality! The guy who the religion is named after!

However, Jesus did condemn divorce and it seems to me so many Christians living today "don't tolerate" the behavior of divorce very differently than how they "don't tolerate" the behavior of homosexuality. Frankly, I've gotten to the point where I don't care what most Christians believe is sin, because clearly they can't even tell.

A lot of the crap people argue about (homosexuality included) is argued on a theological basis rather than an experiential/realistic one, and it has wreaked hell on earth for a long long time. My heart's just tired over all of this.

I'm also tired of hearing "I love the sinner, hate the sin." It never plays out that way; the implicit judgments cause a lot of crap to occur anyway. In practice, it's not as big a distinction as people make it out to be; it tends to just be a cop-out for, "I'm not going to engage in conversation because I don't feel like changing what I believe, but don't worry, I'll try real hard not to be mean to you anyway." It allows the misunderstanding and distance to remain -- a lack of awareness of the shared humanity of the people in question. I'd rather have people seriously engage each other on an intimate basis and maybe forge some relational bonds.

the film claimed that, including housecats, even! I had forgotten to mention this.
I had never even heard this claim before, and it had always appeared to me that nature spoke against it. Animals get together for procreation, not for "love" as we know it; which is a factor in who we hook up with; and same sex won't achive their goal of having offpring. Animals like dogs will sniff each other, when they see they're both the same gender, they won't try to mate.
Could this be a new argument devised in the argument? Years ago, I saw one pro-gay book trying to argue from nature have to appeal to other life forms such as many plants and perhaps lower animal forms to try to prove nature favors it. Now, all of a sudden, where are they getting these claims with all of these other, more developed animals from?

Red herring. The Gospels record nothing He said about racial slavery or adult-child sex, either. So... they're okay by Him?

True, it's ambiguous and doesn't really say either way what Jesus' opinion was.

I think the point is simply that it's an annoying irony, if you'd comb through all the public commentary by followers of Jesus nowadays, to see what percentage of attention is focused on two issues that weren't really part of the talking points of the guy that everyone is claiming to represent. There's lots of things he DID consistently talk about and intently stress that seem to be less represented/prioritized among the most vocal followers.

"Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

“Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft